Re: Google peering in LAX

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Mar 2, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us> wrote:
> On 3/2/20 3:09 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > Your routers, your decision.
> > But how much traffic are you sending TO Google? Most people get the vast majority of traffic FROM Google. They send 
> > you videos, you send them ACKs. Does it matter where the ACKs go?
>
>
> A customer is complaining that data they're sending is going over a higher latency (longer) path. I don't know what 
> they're doing I don't generally ask why, but they claim it's a problem for whatever they're doing and I don't have a 
> reason to doubt them. It's not youtube.
>
> I agree that it's an undesirable long term solution but if filtering select transit-only /24's shifts the path to 
> peering and reduces latency, if the customer is happy then I'm happy and if/when Google starts accepting peering 
> requests again I'll revisit it.

Again, your routers, your decision. But if I had a customer who was complaining, I would take steps to fix it.

Google is sending you prefixes over the IX. You have every right to send them traffic over the IX to those prefixes.

That said, I fear this is going to be a problem long term. A blind “no /24s” filter is dangerous, plus it might solve 
all traffic issues. It is going to take effort to be sure you don’t get bitten by the Law Of Unintended Consequences.

Good luck.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick